Barack Obama’s political appointees are inept, incapable, and needlessly politicize the basic functions of whole segments of the federal government. That is not the assessment of firebrand conservatives but the result of a recent survey of high-placed career federal employees.

The survey, conducted by the Government Business Council, polled 148 Senior Executive Service members. These federal managers ranked Obama’s political appointees at only 2.0, down from the 2.3 rating enjoyed by the Clinton and Bush administrations. At least 10 percent more managers gave Obama’s appointees a D or F than failed Bush or Clinton’s teams. National Journal reports 20 percent gave such low marks to Clinton/Bush, as opposed to “more than 30 percent” for Obama.

More damning than the dry statistical data are the descriptions of federal employees of Obama’s team. According to one manager the political appointees are far more involved in day-to-day affairs, but “the effectiveness, skill and knowledge has dramatically decreased” since January 2009. Some said Obama’s appointees attempt to “break organizations.” One said the administration’s overseers “have a divide-and-conquer strategy, and there are way too many industry fingers allowed in decision-making.” Another said this led to “politicization of normal agency functions.”

Congressman Darrell Issa has written a scathing five-page letter to the Department of Homeland Security stating it demoted an employee who blew the whistle on the department’s illegal stonewalling of Obama’s political foes. Issa, who is the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote to Janet Napolitano that the action had the appearance of “retaliation” and that “Obstructing a congressional investigation is a crime.”

Issa states that Catherine Papoi, who was DHS deputy unit chief in charge of the Freedom of Information Act, was passed over for a promotion and forced to vacate her office the day after she met with investigators.

Imagine two men walk into a bar: Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones. While Mr. Smith orders himself and his new bride a round of drinks, Mr. Jones begins harassing the young lady. Mr. Smith, seeing this behavior, then swaggers back to his seat and describes the physical contest that awaits Mr. Jones if he does not bid Mrs. Smith adieu post haste. As Jones deliberates, Smith warns him, “You have three seconds to leave this bar, or else.” Then imagine the next day every major newspaper in the country covered the story by running the headline, “Smith Backs Down from Bar Fight.”

That’s what would have happened if the mainstream media covered this hypothetical showdown the way they covered Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling on ObamaCare on Thursday.

The First Malpractice of ObamaCare: Journalistic Malpractice

Instead of reporting on Judge Vinson’s stinging, insistent “clarification” of his previous ruling that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, the media emphasized that Vinson grudgingly allowed the administration to implement the policy under certain conditions. Noam N. Levey, the Washington Bureau reporter for the Los Angeles Times whose work is nationally syndicated, called the ruling “a legal victory” for Obama. The Wall Street Journal claimed….